Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25340368›Full record

ArticleAcademic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges2015

Neuropsychiatry and neural cubism.

Sheldon Benjamin

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sheldon BenjaminS. Benjamin is professor of psychiatry and neurology and vice chair for education in psychiatry, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The art movement known as Cubism did not represent a failure of perspective but, rather, was a movement aimed at advancing art by juxtaposing different perspectives. In this issue, Taylor and colleagues describe the current approach by neurologists and psychiatrists to patients with brain disorders as "Neural Cubism" because of the competing angles of these specialists' perspectives about these disorders. They advocate both integrated training for all residents in the two fields and a system of "nested hierarchies" to reclassify brain disorders according to their effect on levels of brain function. The unspoken premise of their article is that it is time for psychiatry and neurology to reunite.This Commentary takes the view that reuniting the long-separated specialties of neurology and psychiatry would not necessarily create better care for all patients with brain disorders but that trainees in both fields would benefit from increased training in the complementary specialty. The new Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education clinical neuroscience milestones for psychiatry training and psychiatry milestones for neurology training are steps in the right direction. Increasing opportunities for combined neurology-psychiatry training will help create a cadre of specialists equipped to efficiently care for complex patients within emerging accountable care organizations. Drawing from two fields in the service of understanding brain-behavior interactions increases the potential for innovation at their interface. The author concludes that the time has come to increase the neurological and neuroscience content of psychiatry training but not to unite the two fields.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEducation, MedicalBrain DiseasesHumansMental DisordersNeurologyPhysiciansPsychiatry

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.